I’ve had the pleasure of reading your posts here for the last 8 years, Aquamarine. I’d call that “justifiable rant!”

With regards the KJV, certainly.

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n1/Vol.%2014,%20No.%201,%201%20Syn.pdf

Right! Nail on the head, Fred.

Correct response to a Press Release! Well, OK, I CAN see that viewpoint insofar as a press release. Not always correct but sometimes it could be, depending upon the press involved.

But how about an issue raised NOT in the press, but person to person, WITHIN an org, Scientologist to Scientologist, public to staff? That’s not “the Press”!

And I was VERY far from “attacking”.

I was INQUIRING. I was QUERYING. Respectfully, and with ARC!

Querying! Policy – LRH policy, permitted me – actually encouraged me to do that!

But yet I got treated as if I were attacking, and had overts and witholds. That I wouldn’t even be ASKING AT ALL if I didn’t have overts and witholds and/or very likely evil purposes against the group!

Wrong indicator! And at that time, my questions were sincere. I did NOT understand! I was NOT attacking my group, I was endeavoring to understand.

But no; just the fact that I was querying was of itself sufficient proof to them that I had taken on the color of an enemy!

THAT was my beef with the cult. And it was a big one, let me tell you! Thank you, Fred for allowing me to rant a little 🙂

You’re a wise person, Aquamarine.

I hear you, Aquamarine.

From “Press Releases,” a Hubbard policy letter from Oct. 28, 1968:

“Always attack in a Press Release. Never defend or deny.”

Also @ Fred:

“Now, if Scientology would, instead, have a two-way comm or pow-wow with their accuser, each party would reap the benefits.”

And there in a nutshell is the fundamental reason why I left the cult. Oh, there were reasons ON TOP of this one – specific off policy actions I observed going on which did not necessarily involve me – but underlying several serious beefs I had with the cult in the end was always their refusal to two way comm with me about it. I was willing; they were not. Not ever. As in never. Given my former pre-Scientology life experiences, these refusals were glaring red flags to me, and started me on my way out, which took 2 years of being UTR, but that’s another story 🙂

Nails on heads all over the place, Fred 🙂

They NEVER explain or defend.

Their only response to criticism or allegations of wrong doing is to ATTACK.

Its policy. Seriously, I’m not being sarcastic.

Its LRH policy to respond to accusations of wrong doing with attacks on the accusers.

And this applies to any and all accusations. Whether they’re true or not. Most likely especially if they’re true 🙂

Pure LRH…”Never defend, always attack”…is, as I recall, how it goes.

That is interesting, Aquamarine. So, in a way when scientology (which rarely, if ever, tells the truth about anything) calls an accusation “scurrilous,” they are causing their own bad reputation. They are bringing it upon themselves.

Now, if Scientology would, instead, have a two-way comm or pow-wow with their accuser, each party would reap the benefits. For that to happen, however, Scientology would have to aside their preconceived ideas and education in everything Hubbard, and that ain’t gonna happen.

You have made some undisputable points, Karl Woodrow. Especially the ones about the narcissistic sociopath.

Fred, I’ve observed that when some people want to deny, or believe they MUST deny an allegation which happens to be unfortunately and inconveniently true, they call the allegation “scurrilous” or “vicious”. They can’t call it false. They can’t state that what is alleged is untrue because it IS true, so their go-to push back on the allegation is that it is “scurrilous”.